People vs Jalosjos

FACTS:
Romeo G. Jalosjos was re-elected as a Congressman of Zambonga Del Norte District
while convicted, imprisoned and on appeal for his criminal cases: Statutory Rape
and acts of Lasciviousness. He filed a motion to the court to allow him to discharge
his function as congressman including attendance to legislative sessions and
committee meetings.
ISSUE:
WON, Romeo Jalosjos will be allowed to fully discharge his functions on the ground
that his re election represents sovereign will of the people and must be given
priority than any other rights and interest including police power.
DECISION:
Yes, he will be allowed to discharge his functions as Congressman but subjected to
the limitations on his freedom. Under the law, everyone is treated alike both in
right and responsibilities imposed. The society has to defend itself from any injury it
may cause him thus any person charged with a crime and taken into custody is for
purposes of administration of justice. As such, Romeo Jalosjos remains to be a
congressman unless he is disqualified or expelled by the Congress but his legitimate
performances as public officer will never be an excuse to validly free him from
prison.

Jimenez vs Cabangbang
FACTS
Nicanor Jimenez et al instituted a civil action against Bartolome Cabangbang, a
member of the House of Representatives, for the publication of an allegedly libelous
open letter addressed to the President of the Philippines while the congress is
presumably not in session. The defendant however dismissed the complaint on the
ground that it is a privileged communication
ISSUE:
WON the publication is a privileged communication?
DECISION:
No, the publication is not a privileged communication. Under Art VI. Sec 11, a
privileged communication is the expression/communication made by the
congressman in the performances of their official functions. The letter was

published while the congress is not in session thus Bartolome Cabangbang was not
in the performance of his official duty, either as a member of the Congress, or as
officer, or any Committee thereof.
Tolentino vs. Comelec
FACTS:
After the succession of GMA to the Presidency, Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr was
installed as Vice President, thus, vacating one position in the Senate. The senate
passed a resolution confirming of a vacancy in the senate and called on COMELEC
that whoever garners the 13 th highest number of votes in the May 2001 regular
elections shall serve the remaining term of Sen Guingona. Come election, COMELEC
declared all the winners with Sen. Honasan who garnered the 13 th highest number
of votes to seat in replacement of Sen Guingona. The plaintiffs questioned the
legality of the conduct of the special elections because the COMELEC failed to:
1
2
3

inform the electorate of the vacancy in the senate.

Indicate in the Cert of Candidacy whether the candidate is running for the
special or regular election
Indicate in the voters information sheet as to who are running in the
special or regular senatorial elections

ISSUE:
WON the special election to fill a vacant three-year term Senate seat was validly
held in the May 14,2001 elections.
RULLING
Yes, the election was valid. The election was held simultaneously with the
regular elections. Even when the COMELEC failed to notify the electorate does not
invalidate such election because the right and duty to hold the election emanate
from the statute and not from any authority, thus, voters are presumed to know the
law. The failure to indicate in the cert of candidacy and the voters information
sheet of those candidates who are running for the special election is not necessary.
The Comelec is given the discretion on how to carry out its mandate as long as it is
legal and does not constitute grave abuse of authority.
Dimaporo v. Mitra
FACTS:
Mohammad Ali Dimaporo was elected as a representative for the second legislative
district of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 congressional elections.
Dimaporo filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of governor of ARMM.
Secretary and Speaker of the House excluded the name of Dimaporo from the Roll
of Members of HR Under Art IX of Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Dimaporo lost the election and wrote a letter intending to resume performing his
duties and functions as an elected member of the Congress. Unfortunately, he was
not able to regain his seat in the Congress.
Dimaporo contended that Section 7, Article VI states: "The Members of the House of
Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their
election." On the other hand, the grounds by which such term may be shortened
may be summarized as Section 7, par. 2: Voluntary renunciation of office.
ISSUE
Whether or not the legislature may shorten the term of office as congressman of
Mohammad Ali Dimaporo after filing his certificate of candidacy for governor of
ARMM?
RULLING
No, the legislature may not shorten his term of office. In theorizing that the
provision under consideration cuts short the term of office of a Member of Congress,
petitioner seems to confuse "term" with "tenure" of office. As succinctly
distinguished by the Solicitor General: The term of office prescribed by the
Constitution may not be extended or shortened by the legislature (22 R.C.L.), but
the period during which an officer actually holds the office (tenure) may be affected
by circumstances within or beyond the power of said officer. Tenure may be shorter
than the term or it may not exist at all. These situations will not change the duration
of the term of office (see Topacio Nueno vs. Angeles, 76 Phil 12).
Under the questioned provision, when an elective official covered thereby files a
certificate of candidacy for another office, he is deemed to have voluntarily cut
short his tenure, not his term. The term remains and his successor, if any, is allowed
to serve its unexpired portion.